In an earlier post, I suggested that the Obama administration’s proposal to limit charitable deductions by the wealthy does nothing more than take money away from those that need it most. That argument is based on a (realistic, I believe) assumption that charitable contributions are affected by the marginal tax rate. [At least they are for me – I have to pay taxes; I don’t have to donate to charity.]
We know that the Obama administration is committed to “social justice” – President Obama’s told us that often enough. And that’s what bothers me about his proposal.
As the law currently stands, a wealthy taxpayer has complete control to direct his/her charitable contribution, including, as I have shown, the Government’s contribution. Under the Obama proposal, that same taxpayer has effective control of only 89% of his/her contribution, while the Government – committed to social justice – has control of the rest and can designate it as it wishes, not as the taxpayer wishes.
Given the incredible lobby influence in Government – and the Obama administration’s penchant for “social justice” – it strikes me as an opportunity to buy votes.
I’d like to believe I’m wrong, and there’s an old saying that one should not attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity, but here I’m leaning toward malice.
Stupidity if they believe that people won't change their spending habits to avoid these fees. And that's common for liberal thinking, who associate going Galt as just striking.
ReplyDeleteMalicious if they think we don't know what the "good" charities are, ignoring the shocking history of Farm Aid or UNICEF and Food for Oil, and all of the well-intentioned horrors that unfortunately make us have to always think twice when being charitable. Because we're just too clueless to "get" it.
So, really, I think this might be a rare case of both.